Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:06, 14 July 2008

Sockpuppetry

Sorry about being so sarcastic about your message the other day. I meant no offense. Sgt. bender (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. take care Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Iwazaki for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please mediate

Hello. The Kofun Period of Japan has received destruction. I need your mediation. Could you help? --Princesunta (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a little busy right now, but I shall try to give it some attention after work tomorrow. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The sock user has been banned today morning. This notice will save your time. --Appletrees (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Appletrees, if it is a sock, then I see no need to waste my time. Sennen goroshi (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sock puppet case

No, it's okay, if you want to respond to that case. I will remove the archive tags until you say what you want to say. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Discretionary plural

In British English, in the case of football clubs, musical groups, etc., the verb form used is referred to as the discretionary plural. This allows for the use of singular or plural depending on the context. In the sentence "Manchester United Football Club an English football club", the verb form that would sound most correct is the singular form. However, in the sentence "Manchester United the Premier League champions", the plural seems more appropriate. If you have any more questions about grammar in British English, please feel free to ask. – PeeJay 18:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for quoting scripture to me. However, in the sentence "Manchester United Football Club is an English football club", the singular is used as the subject of the sentence is the club as a singular entity. Surely you must see this? – PeeJay 21:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Manucho

"Manucho Gonçalves" is not the player's real name. That name was used by a minority of news sources when he first came to the fore, but he is now more commonly known just as "Manucho". By the way, your reference to David Beckham is an ill-conceived one. Of course Beckham isn't commonly referred to as "Becks", as that's just informal. In the case of Manucho, however, he and many other Portuguese-speaking people often go by a single name in place of their (often long) full names. Now, can you revert your edit please? – PeeJay 17:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

is this better? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Manchester_United_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=213506861 Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. I think you are now being intentionally confrontational. The player's name is Mateus Alberto Contreiras Gonçalves, which is commonly shortened to Manucho, the name he is almost always known by. Please make the Manchester United article reflective of this. – PeeJay 17:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

but looking at a couple of the links on the bottom of the article, makes what you are saying a little hard to agree with.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_2997132,00.html

http://www.manutd.com/default.sps?pagegid={B4CEE8FA-9A47-47BC-B069-3F7A2F35DB70}&newsid=517365

Im sorry, but I think its better my way.

Oh one more thing, if you are trying to gain adminship, then perhaps you should learn to assume good faith, rather than accusing people of being "intentionally confrontational"

Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course you think your way is better. Everyone thinks their way is better. However, those references are from a time when Manucho was still coming to the fore. More recent references simply refer to him as Manucho. By the way, now I think you're just trying to bait me into saying something incriminatory. – PeeJay 17:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, at no point in that ManUtd.com reference does the author refer to the player as either "Manucho Gonçalves" or "Mateus Gonçalves", both of which you claim are names he is commonly known by. – PeeJay 18:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sir Alex Ferguson believes new signing Manucho Goncalves can become a star of the future for Manchester United. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I said the ManUtd.com reference, not the Sky Sports reference. – PeeJay 18:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Did I say otherwise? And anyway, I consider Sky Sports to be a reliable and verifiable source . BTW good luck with the RFA Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, but it doesn't look like the RFA is going to succeed. Anyway, let's not get off topic here. For every one reference you can find that states his name as "Manucho Gonçalves", I could probably find three or four that just say "Manucho", so I think we both know which way this one is going to fall. – PeeJay 18:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Chants

It has nothing to do with being crude, but it should not be added without a citation from a reliable source, which does not include fans' common knowledge. Kit (association football) is a Featured Article and therefore is expected to be of a certain standard, which includes all material being supported by reliable sources...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Cited now, don't think the fact that it says "bastard" rather than "wanker" is a big issue, I've heard both with equal frequency down the years..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

林檎木

林檎木 has been blocked again. Somebody needs to buy the kid a muzzle! -RatSkrew (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticized

One word: spellchecker. Plus, if the article is following British English, people "sitting over" the article would correct it anyway.--Jahilia (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What I know is that there are some articles which follow British English (e.g., articles related to South Asia) and other articles which follow American English. I have no intention to ever check this fact myself, simply because my "contribution" was to make a link towards ManU, and petty edits like changing spellings from this to that are, IMHO, for people with too much... enthusiasm. If you think I am wrong, go correct it. I really have no time to argue what I should or shouldn't do.--Jahilia (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I love grammer nazis :)--Jahilia (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That is strange, you consider changing the spelling to reflect British or American English to be petty, however you changed it to reflect American English. Was that petty? Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Die

"reverted edit made by known vandal" - I think you will find those edits weren't actually made by me... Plus I have been editing here for way longer than you... JJGD (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the aggressive comment by JJGD above, and considering their editing history, I've blocked JJGD for one year. Any recurrence of similar behavior by JJGD should result in an indefinite block. -- The Anome (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

wow. that was speedy, faster than a speeding bullet etc. thanks Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

bukkake

May i just point out that the comment on my talk page is NOT by me and does not represent my views, indeed I am attempting to refute the views expressed by non-registered user 75.72.34.245. I believe you left your message on the wrong page. --Brideshead (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Well, after seeing on ANI I thought you could do with a bit of cheering up :-) Serviam (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevada-tan

I reverted your edit on Nevada-tan because this has been discussed on Talk:Nevada-tan after which a consensus held that there is not sufficient proof for such a grave accusation. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi! I'm sorry to inform you that your request has been declined after the input of administrators. You can see the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for rollback/Denied/June_2008#User:Sennen_goroshi. Best wishes, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No probs. As I say, wait a month or so and you'll have it granted. Have you heard of Twinkle? It's for Firefox only, but it does rollback and a whole lot of other useful things. A good demonstration with that, or with the undo function will help your chances. All the best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Gender neutrality in English

I've reverted your edits in the Gender neutrality in English article again. The article does need POV cleanup (badly), but your changes only shift the article to your own POV. For instance, what purpose does it serve to change the "female doctor" example into a "male doctor" example? Please don't revert the article again. Including your IP edits, you're already in violation of the three revert rule. --JaGa (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess you've decided against that spirit of compromise, eh? Don't tell me what I can and can not revert. --JaGa (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but when a revert does nothing apart from disrupting wikipedia and/or proving a point, I will tell people not to revert. I consider me making such a statement is better than templating or reporting the user. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, buddy. You claimed to make your last edit in "the spirit of compromise", and I decided to let it go. And then you came back a week later and made the rest of your edit. So your concept of "compromise" is laughably hypocritical. I see that masculinizing the article's example is very very important to you, so I won't upset you by changing it back. --JaGa (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is that the article was always masculine, for over 4 years !! someone changed it less than a month ago, so I reverted their change. Even if that was not the case, I was still right to change it. Masculine is far more natural in this situation. You reverting it would not upset me, this is a website, not the real world, if you think you can justify reverting me and if you think it will improve the article, then go ahead. Despite your tone, I really hope you are starting to understand that I was working hard to keep an edit based on longstanding consensus, while you were just disrupting the editing process (with good but misguided intentions) with your edits. Have a wonderful day. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't agree with your assessment. You're portraying yourself as a victim, beset by the disruptive edits of others. But looking at your history tells a different story. You use a wide array of tactics to get your way. You use abusive, bullying language when you can, and when that doesn't work, you ignore consensus altogether. You've been blocked for edit warring and 3RR violations. So please don't play the victim. Also, you claim you were working hard to uphold longstanding consensus, but on my talk page you admit you didn't know the example originally used "he" until today, when you looked at the article's edit history. That means you didn't know it was "longstanding consensus" when you made your original edits last week; that was simply your preference, and now you're using the edit history to justify yourself. All this is fine; I'm not going to change it back, it isn't worth the effort; but I don't want to see the issues here misrepresented. OK, I'm going to go have that wonderful day you suggested, I hope you do the same. --JaGa (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, I was working hard to keep the edit due to longstanding consensus, prior to that I was making the edit because it was the right thing to do. I suggest that you have good faith in editors, and stop complaining about my choice of language - when wikipedia is not censored. If my fucking language offends you, then why bother interacting with me? it just seems to be upsetting you.

At the end of the day my edits were right, yours were not. I'm sorry if that is not what you want to hear, but I think the problem lies with your vandalism crusade, you are a little too trigger happy when reverting, and should pay a little more attention to what you are reverting, perhaps if you do that, then these problems will not arise again. Just think, if you had taken the time to look at the edit history of the topic in question, before reverting me, then this saga would have been finished a long time ago. Hope your day was good, take care Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

please mind your civility

I think you're approaching the edge of what's appropriately WP:CIVIL. First you attack this IP user calling their edit "fucking absurd". Then you put a comment on my talk page commanding "don't revert me". Now you jump into another discussion on my page calling my vandal patrol revert of an unsourced edit "bullshit". If you cannot control the belligerence in your tone, I will be forced to report your actions. Please, let's not go there. I'd rather be cleaning up vandalism than dealing with you. --JaGa (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Supercar

I noticed you added the term "supercar" to some articles. The consensus on WP:CAR is to not use "supercar". For the related discussions see:

• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 11#Car Classifications
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 11#Supercar eradication
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 12#Return of the Supercar category
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 11#Category:Supercars
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 22#Category:Supercar

swaq 16:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but thats just silly. I can understand there being a few issues with people trying to apply the term to an M3 or something borderline, but I am only adding it to blatant supercars. BTW who/what are WP:CAR? Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:CAR is the Automobiles WikiProject and is comprised of Misplaced Pages users interested in cars. Your definition of a blatant supercar and another person's may vary. swaq 17:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there will always be borderline cases. But an F40/F50/Enzo would be supercars to anyone, and I'm sure there are sources that define them as such. care for me to find the sources, to bring this to an easy end? Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I recommend discussing any such additions on the article talk pages before making the changes. However, it has been agreed that saying something like "X car has been called/considered a supercar according to <source>" is okay, but should generally be avoided unless it is notable to the car. Just flat out saying "X is a supercar" is usually either original research (when unsourced) or the opinion of the source. I don't disagree with you on the F40/F50/Enzo, but the Audi R8 is a borderline case for me. Please understand this topic has been the center of a lot of controversy so tread lightly. swaq 17:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, the R8 is borderline, I wouldnt consider a base model 911 to be a supercar, but a 911 turbo is. I understand that some people are having issues with the classification, but it seems to be common sense for a few cars. I am yet to visit the Maclaren F1 article, I don't think I want to see that car called a sports car. I am not editing these articles to prove a point, but on principal and due to common sense I feel the need to make these changes, if someone has come to the conclusion that an Enzo is not a supercar, then they are wrong. I had this discussion in the past regarding the new GTR..I can see why people dont consider it to be a supercar, but apart from the R8, the articles were obviously supercars. To me common sense is far more important than some committee not liking a certain term Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If you dislike the consensus you can bring up the issue again on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles. swaq 17:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Have done exactly that. I would like to see some common sense prevailing - wikipedia is not made up of total retards, and I do have some faith in the other editors. I don't really care for silly votes etc, I just think having the term sports car is plain wrong. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As you can see above, the controversy surrounding use of "supercar" is well documented. Friday (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

the controversy is well documented, and also quite stupid in the case of cars like the F1, Veyron and F40. A little more common sense, and a little less talk page drama is what is needed. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This problem can be solved. If it was called a supercar by various sources, this can be in the article. We just want to avoid use of it as a car classification because of the well-documented problems in doing so. Friday (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Then this problem can be easily solved for all articles.. If a car deserves the tag of supercar, then I assume there are many sources to cite, if the sources cannot be found, then it cant be called a supercar. I am not about to hunt sources now, but I will look and see what I can find. Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR

I assume you know about 3RR, but in just in case here is the standard warning.

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, I could be an ass and state "dont template the regulars" but I will assume good faith and that your warning was merely you being helpful. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're a regular, you should know better. Your objection to calling Ferrari F40 a "sports car" is pretty ridiculous. Friday (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I should know better than to do what? I didn't not make more than 3 reverts, that's why I was warned, rather than reported. My objection to the term sports car, is not as ridiculous as the reverts made when I called the F40 a supercar. The term sportscar is retarded in comparison with the term supercar, when used for an F40. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Bukkake

I reverted you because you say there is gay bukkake porn but offer no evidence of it, find a link which provides evidence of one single japanese title involving male on male bukkake. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand and sympathize with your view. I am a feminist, and a strong supporter of GLBT issues. The point in this article that is important is that Bukkake originated as a method of establishing dominance over women as an act of humiliation. This is important as a historical reference to how woman have been treated, and washing that history away and pretending that it did not happen is not beneficial. Is it sexist? Yes. It is not sexist because we wish to attack or dent one sex or the other, it is sexist because that is historically accurate. There is no benefit in erasing the history of sexism.

You are correct that since that time the act of many people ejaculating on the face of a subject has become a popular pornographic subject. But, consider that just because one or more men ejaculates on the face of another man has occured, and has been filmed that it has the same name as the act that was historically done to humiliate and subjugate women. The act of subjugation is called Bukkake. The act of ejaculating on a man is called a facial. Yes, the original definition has been misused -- being, in fact, called Bukkake in some gay films. I don't need a citation to believe that.

If you read the article carefully, it establiches the correct and historical definition, and then clearly says that the term has been incorrectly used after that point to include men on men ejaculation as well as ejaculation on other parts of the body than the face. Perhaps over time the terminology will no longer mean what it originally did, and be eroded to mean just a general ejaculation by one or more men or women onto the face or body of one or more subjects. My thought is just because there are a few gay porn movies that have called it "Gay Bukkake" in order to capitalize on the fascination with the subject that this misonmer effectively or officially changes the definition. Atom (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think that your opinion, despite you being entitled to it, is really worthy of being in the article, there will always be a few people who you can cite, who have extreme views - having seen enough porn myself (like I imagine 99$ of people online) I agree that a lot of the Japanese bukkake concentrates on humiliation, but there is also enough of it that shows a more than willing target, who is loving the who process. I think the way that the term bukkake is used nowadays, there is no difference between a group facial and bukkake. Are you of the opinion that Bukkake is always a submissive and humiliating act of the part of the target? I don't see it as a way of dominating women, I see it as a way of selling porn. It's an act that wasn't accidentally caught on camera, it was staged for the purpose of making money. I cannot imagine that it ever occurs to anyone who is not more than willing to have it happen to them. Hmmmmmm now I really am in two minds, my opinion regarding why it occurs is not relevant, neither is yours..The quotes are fine, I was wrong to remove them..well some of them, the more reliable sources are fine. However how to define bukkake? Just because it started as a male on female act, and progressed from that, does it make it all bukkake? Does it need the original genders for it to be bukkake?

As for Darren your comments are absurd, do I really have to go hunting for gay bukkake porn, just to prove that it exists, you know perfectly well it does exist, unless you have lived under a rock for the last decade or 2. have a look yourself http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=gay+bukkake clicky..

Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the explanation in the article about your reasons for removing the Craccum citation, as well as the material I added. I agree that what I added is OR. I think that it is true, and can, perhaps, eventually be cited, but until I have reliable sources, I will leave that material out. I will check into the Craccum cite, as I'm surprised that it is not reliable.

Regarding your other comments, you seem to discuss Bukkake usually in the context of pornography. I feel that the history of the word, and the act goes back much further than the recent use in pornography. Regarding the historical term, and act, it was likely exclusively an act of subjugation of women. Of course, the pornographic use is quite different. Perhaps it is used as an act of dominance of men subjugating and humiliating a woman in some films. I don't watch pornography, and so I am not certain how it is used broadly. My guess is that more likely in U.S. and european versionbs it is a fetish act where the woman conbsents willingly and often pretends(acts), or genuinely enjoys being a participant. This is starkly different from the act as it has been for hundreds of years.

I guess my point is that a few pornographic film makers calling something they do on Film 'bukkake' in order to get an audience, when it is really something else, doesn't necessarily erase or redefine the correct usage of the term. If a film is made of men ejaculating on the body of other men, and it is called Bukkake, or Gay Bukkake, that doesn't mean that it is. Bukkake is the act of a group of men ejaculating on the face of a woman as the subject, and so it it a physical act that in form resembles the act of Bukkake. There really is no english term to distinguish the sociology from the act. Perhaps the reason that when the subject is male they call is "Gay Bukkake" they recognize as we do that it is not "Bukkake", or they would simply call it that.

Regards to you, Atom (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Canizares only? And the rest?

Then where are Mora,Lombán and Montoro??? Don´t induce people in error,ok? Or i going to reverse again... - Tiago Heitor (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

replied on your talk page. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I support Valencia, so i should know, Here's the link. http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_3574761,00.html (Fadiga09 (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

replied on your talk page..PS you have my sympathy, it must be hard supporting a team that comes so close to greatness and then fails.. who knows one day Valencia might win the champions league..(the year that no English/Italian teams enter..and neither do Real/Barca) Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, your such a laugh, you fucking tosspot, neither us or Arsenal have won it, so that's fine with me, us two are the two biggest clubs to not have won it, so that's fine with me you fucking imbecile, and on the Canizares thing, LISTEN CAREFULLY, HIS CONTRACT ENDED IN JUNE AND IT WAS NOT RENEWED. (Fadiga09 (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC))